Open-source database company MySQL has decided to stick to the current General Public License rather than move to an upcoming revision, pending broader industry acceptance. MySQL, one of the most successful commercial ventures to use the GPL, has modified its license terms from 'version 2 or later' to 'version 2' only, according to Kaj Arno, the company's vice president of community.

My honest appraisal of this is to refuse to use MySQL. Do not recommend it, nor use it. simple. If they want to alienate the community like this, then I don't want them as part of the community. Period.

If I'm not mistaken they want you to sign over copyrights for all contributions to MySQL, so they can license it any way they like. Not allowing a license that not yet have been finalized seams quite reasonable though.

However, there are plenty of technical and business ethical issues that would make it a good idea not to recommend them anyway.

I'm thinking of their bait and switch tactics, when they tell the world how amazingly fast their database is, and at the same time telling you that they now support all the things you expect from a modern RDBMS, without mentioning that the speed they brag about only is there if you turn most of the new features off (and that many of them are turned off by default).

In the past they have also often tried to make it sound like commercial use of the GPLed version of MySQL was not allowed, while GPL in fact does not contain any such terms, thus trying to make people buy MySQL licenses on false pretenses.

I'm not saying that buying a license is a bad idea e.g. if you run some kind of commersial web service as it will allow for you to get support, but should be able base your decision on correct and consistent information from MySQL.

Their deal with SCO didn't make them look any better in my book. Given that SCO sues even their customers (e.g AutoZone), over minor issues, I think that doing business with SCO is a sign of bad judgment on MySQLs part. Especially as it was bound to upset the free software community that contribute to their success.

Luckily, there are no problems finding other free and better database products to recommend.

Since the majority of the kernel developers, Linus himself, many other software producers and now MySQL are all sticking with GPL 2.0, I'd say it's RMS that's alienating the community with the draft GPL 3.0.

Glad to see I'm not alone in seeing this. I get the impression that the FSF group wants to state what is and what isn't a community.
The fsf group likes to claim that GPL software isnt public domain. If that is the case the companies are free to do what they want with their software no matter what the license is, so long as they werent stupid enough to assign the copyright to the FSF.

Indeed, now, RMS needs to understand how much damage he's doing.
Why? Because some people out there who never even bothered to inform themselves about what is being done on the GPLv3 draft are spreading lies and FUD about the whole process? What exactly is the damage you speak of?

Amen. You grok it. There's a lot of fud going around at the moment, and most of it is from pro corporate interest users of GNU/Linux. Plain and simple.

Tell me people how far would the Linux kernel have gotten without the usage of the GNU GCC compiler, which Linus originally used? He didn't want to pay for a commercial compiler, and there were [I believe] no free alternatives available back then.

they try to block some things the bigger world wants: interoperability issues. Actually, there are people who like the GPL quite a bit but refuse to have changes that explode in their faces.

What may happen is that if GPLv3 is being restrictive on deals like the MS/Novell deal, it probably will cause a lot of damage to what people want.

It also will divide the community more than now already. If that is what you want, then go ahed and vote for the GPLv3.

If you want to see linux going better, growing, then start thinking and forget the FUD the MS/Novell deal carries. Don't try to amplify the FUD on the MS/Novell deal. It's exactly what some people want and the community happily helps with that. It's not good. [for linux].

Sure, we're all grateful that gcc et al is there to use but we should take care of linux, not kill it by a "great" forthcoming "yada yada yada, we block the MS/Novell delas!" GPLv3.

It damages more than you think, a *lot* more than you think.

We're at a tipping moint and we shouldn't let the GPL have us tipping in the wrong direction if we want to keep linux succeeding.

First of all, the GPLv3 doesn't even exist and is still being drafted. How can anyone claim that something will be bad when that thing doesn't even exist yet? Moreover, that process is open to public participation. If there are so many concerns how come those concerns are only being claimed by people who aren't at all engaged in the drafting process?

Second, no one can force anyone to suddenly release their software under GPLv3. Linus himself already stated that Linux will not be released under GPLv3, not because of any FUD reason but due to the fact that it isn't possible to track every kernel contributor to get his approval to re-license his code under GPLv3. So how exactly can GPLv3 "divide the linux community"? How can GPLv3 "damage" anything? It can't.

Third, there are only two changes which are being discussed to be included on GPLv3. Those changes are there to prevent the tivoization of free software (i.e., you can use the released software but you are forbidden to modify and run any version of that software due to artificial restrictions imposed by the manufacturer) and the companies which release GPLv3 software must agree that they will not sue their users for violating any patent that the company used on that product. So in the end the only thing that is being done on GPLv3 is protecting the user's freedom to run, modify and distribute the software and protect the user from frivolous patent lawsuits from the company that released patented code under the GPL. How can any of those changes possibly be any bad?

This whole "GPLv3 is bad" thing is starting to get so stupid that it isn't even funny. To make matters worse those anti-GPLv3 comments are only originating from complete utter ignorance. It's plain mindless FUD propagation. The GPLv3 information is available to the public on literally a couple mouse clicks away. What is there to stop anyone from educating themselves instead of mindlessly spreading lies and chanting the FUD mantra that was fed to them? Wake up.

How exactly is the FSF alienating the community if what it has been doing with the public debate about GPLv3 is engaging the community on the issue of how to better defend itself against attacks on the four kinds of freedom for the software users? Moreover, how is the GPLv3 debate alienating anyone if no one will ever be forced to release their own software projects under GPLv3?

They (MySQL company) probably feel the same about you. How much money have you spent on their products ? How much code did you contribute to the project ? Do you even know how to use MySQL, or any other SQL server ?

Here is the scoop (as I see it) in black and white (allowing for, perhaps, 2-bit greyscale) ;-)

1. MySQL AB is a company which really "gets" the value of OSS from a practical standpoint.

1a. I cannot comment upon their philosophical "values", since I am not privy to them.

2. MYSQL AB's business model is to develop the best RDBMS that they can, using the most effective methods at their disposal, and to sell proprietary licenses to those who desire to use it in a non-oss fashion, in order to pay the bills and make an honest profit.

2a. MySQL has a bit of a creative interpretation of what "non-oss fashion" means, and recommends the purchase of the proprietary license in situations which are... open to debate. (I'm glad I allowed myself at least 2-bit greyscale!) ;-)

3. To this end, MySQL AB has to retain control (at least jointly) of the copyrights to all of the code used by MySQL, *or* secure a proprietary license to allow them to sell their own proprietary licenses which include the code.

3a. This means that they must require that contributors either hand over their copyright ownership, or agree to a joint copyright relationship.

4. MySQL made a stupid mistake in the past that has left them scrambling over the past year, or whatever, to find a database engine that meets their requirements, but which Oracle does not own and cannot buy.

6. MySQL AB realizes that technical shortcomings can be more than made up for by skillful and well funded marketing, combined with relatively simpler administration for Web hosting companies.

6a. Despite their stupid mistake, they have some business savvy.

6b. They recognize the value of being "good enough".

7. Due to 6, 6a, and 6b, MySQL AB has done more for the acceptance of OSS databases than any other entity.

7a. This has helped other, more technically advanced OSS contenters, like PostgreSQL and Firebird, gain credibility.

And the big disclaimer: I prefer PostgreSQL to any of them.

OK. I guess the *really* big disclaimer is that I can see where GPLv2 *and* GPLv3 are each the "best" for some things, and are both positively a round peg in a square hole for others.

What does all this have to do with this thread?

I'm not sure, because I haven't read the article yet. :-P

But if emotional phrases like "alienate the community" are showing up this early in the thread, it can't hurt to give my mostly (but, of course, not completely) objective view of who MySQL AB is and how they realistically fit into our world.

Have a nice day. :-)

---

Edit: Add the bombshell about thinking that there is room for more than one OSS license in this world.

Quote: "3a. This means that they must require that contributors either hand over their copyright ownership, or agree to a joint copyright relationship."

I would certainly NEVER commit to a project like this, nor would I ever recommended it. What MySQL is asking is outrageous. It's good to see that so many people think that there is nothing wrong with this, it really does define to me what the average Linux user is like now - they care more about their own selfish personal needs than the overall wellbeing of the entire community.

"""I would certainly NEVER commit to a project like this, nor would I ever recommended it. What MySQL is asking is outrageous. It's good to see that so many people think that there is nothing wrong with this, it really does define to me what the average Linux user is like now - they care more about their own selfish personal needs than the overall wellbeing of the entire community."""

Could you possibly give us a few links to the code contributions you have made which benefit the entire community rather than tending to your own self-centered adgenda?

I'm sure we'd all be interested in reviewing them.

I'm not particularly keen on the idea of joint copyright requirements, myself.

But, just how many times have you been called upon to make that decision, Mr. Free Software?

*Quote: "3a. This means that they must require that contributors either hand over their copyright ownership, or agree to a joint copyright relationship."*

I would certainly NEVER commit to a project like this, nor would I ever recommended it. What MySQL is asking is outrageous. It's good to see that so many people think that there is nothing wrong with this, it really does define to me what the average Linux user is like now - they care more about their own selfish personal needs than the overall wellbeing of the entire community.

Wow, that's an impressive level of self-righteous indignation. I just can't help wondering if you realize that the GNU projects make the exact same requirement? Try and submit some code to the FSF without assigning copyright, and see how far you get.

Yes, you are correct in this statement. The fundamental difference is that giving up your code to the MySQL owners, is far different to giving up your code to the FSF imho. One will look after the community's best interests, another one is a company trying to make a commercial buck. I know which one I trust and it ain't MySQL.

Is Linux "alienating the community" by being GPLv2-only? I don't think so. Honestly, the "any later version" concept is a little crazy; why would you agree to allow your software to be used under terms that you have never seen?

The problem with your line of thought is that sometimes, things come up (like the Microsoft/Novell deal), which were not originally realised by the earlier licensing agreement. By rendering the license to forbid re-releasing or forking under a different license, it is then being both against the principle of the GPL, and also stopping new versions of the GPL from being applied to stop such non-community actions as those of the Microsoft/Novell deal.

I don't care about Linux becoming a big business, corporate hijacked operating system. I want to remain part of the community, and to serve what the community wants, not what the greedy corporate business interests want, which is now what is starting to happen. These bastards have gotten free beta testing from members of the open source community, and now that they sniff some money to be made, they want to limit what the community can do. I'm sorry, but that's not being part of the community, that's using and abusing the community's trust and expectations.

As far as I'm concerned, the Linux kernel should be moved to the GPL v3, it's just that Linus and co. are now corporate shills, who's only real interest now is making a buck, rather than serving the community that they originally coded for. It's funny how money changes people and their ideals.

Yet, you ignore the scenario in which a future version of the license does not help the community.

How does the GPL v3 stop corporate deals like Novell's? How is any deal like that going to affect anyone but Novell? How does a deal like Novell's affect the FOSS communities in a bad way?

"As far as I'm concerned, the Linux kernel should be moved to the GPL v3"

Why? What does the new GPL have to offer it? What's so wrong with version 2?

"These bastards have gotten free beta testing from members of the open source community"

Yes, and? How many people did Microsoft pay to try the Vista public beta? Oh, those bastards, getting free beta testing from the closed source community!

Would you prefer that they pay for beta testing, or charge for it, if you don't like it being free? Or are they supposed to make worse quality software, by releasing software with only in-house testing done?

"and now that they sniff some money to be made, they want to limit what the community can do."

Now? MySQL is a business. They need to make some money to keep making software, since they do this for a living. This is not new. They've been sniffing money to be made for years.

"I'm sorry, but that's not being part of the community, that's using and abusing the community's trust and expectations."

XFree86 did the same kind of thing. Look what happened. If this is really abusing the community's trust, the community is free to use a previous version and ditch the real MySQL, making am free fork. Joomla comes to mind, as well. Worst case, you're a few minor versions behind, right?

"As far as I'm concerned, the Linux kernel should be moved to the GPL v3, it's just that Linus and co. are now corporate shills, who's only real interest now is making a buck, rather than serving the community that they originally coded for."

If you wash off the used motor oil, you might find those glasses can color things to look like roses.

Quote: "Yet, you ignore the scenario in which a future version of the license does not help the community"

And we both know that that is highly unlikely. Personally, I really hope that the FSF makes changes to the GPL v3 to make it impossible to use GPl v2 software with software that has been GPL v3'd. Let's take all of the FSF software and push it to GPl v3 and see Linux swim. Sure, it'd make the FSF unpopular, but it'd make it clear to those bastards bastardising GNU/Linux to either keep their hands off free software, or play by the rules. Period. You have your beliefs, I have mine, so I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Quote: "Why? What does the new GPL have to offer it? What's so wrong with version 2?"

Let me see: Tivio. That's for starters. Let's wait and see how many others use the Tivio approach to rort the GPL. You can claim ignorance, but I know that what Tivio did was not playing by the intentions of the GPL. The Microsoft/Novell deal is another example of a exploiting a loophole in a 15 year old license agreement, that is clearly showing its age in this modern age of software patents, which were unheard of way back when the GPL v2 was released.

I see a bunch of Linux users that would be screaming blue murder if they had to pay for the right to use a distribution (or any distribution). That's what would have probably had happened if it wasn't for the foresight of RMS. We'd end up with a BSD style license that allows corporations to raid the code and not give back to the community. Unlike the BSD license, the GPL is about the community. It's amazing how many people just simply don't understand this concept.

Quote: "Yes, and? How many people did Microsoft pay to try the Vista public beta? Oh, those bastards, getting free beta testing from the closed source community!"

If you submitted at least one bug to Microsoft, you were eligible for a free version of Microsoft Vista Ultimate - which retails for nearly $800 in Australia. That seems a good deal for me. And it's submitted a bug - as far as I'm aware, as long as you submitted a 'suspected' bug (which might not have turned out to be an actual bug), you are eligible. I call that pretty good.

Quote: "Would you prefer that they pay for beta testing, or charge for it, if you don't like it being free? Or are they supposed to make worse quality software, by releasing software with only in-house testing done?"

By advertising MySQL as 'gpl' many people have used it. Many of those people have helped make it a better product by simply using it and reporting back issues. They are the community. Most of the community that I see and talk to are pro GPL v3. I don't think it's a community spirit to have a minority dictating to the majority of the community that their software cannot be moved to GPL v3. Sure, the developers own the copyright, but they are writing for the community if they choose to release any code under the GPL. And as far as I'm concerned, not considering the community at large when considering alterations to license agreements is tantamount to saying that you don't give a shit about the community. MySQL has seen the light on the profit and corporation side, they'd rather make a buck and screw the GPL community than behave themselves and truly belong to the community.

Quote: "Now? MySQL is a business. They need to make some money to keep making software, since they do this for a living. This is not new. They've been sniffing money to be made for years."

Absolutely. I don't have a particular problem with that. What I do have a problem with is several lead software developers (Linus amongst them) that are now so enamoured of the money that corporations are throwing at them that they now ignore the very community that spawned them. I call them traitors.

Quote: "XFree86 did the same kind of thing. Look what happened. If this is really abusing the community's trust, the community is free to use a previous version and ditch the real MySQL, making am free fork. Joomla comes to mind, as well. Worst case, you're a few minor versions behind, right?"

Yes, that's true. However - doing what MySQL is doing is not in the spirit of the GPL. Making changes like this and saying 'stfu' to the community, and forcing them to fork the code is not community friendly.

Quote: "If you wash off the used motor oil, you might find those glasses can color things to look like roses."

The biggest problem with Linux over the past 3 years has been the involved corporate interest in it. It's both unwanted and unneeded as far as I'm concerned. The average user doesn't need XFS, or JFS. Or most of the other features introduced in the 2.6 series kernel tree for that matter.

I'm a FSF guy, that's my modus operandi, my personal beliefs. You can mock my beliefs, but that certainly won't change them - it will only make me more sure of my beliefs.

Personally, I really hope that the FSF makes changes to the GPL v3 to make it impossible to use GPl v2 software with software that has been GPL v3'd.

Then it wouldn't be much better than commercial EULAs, which force users into submission (unless you really consider staying with obsolete software or fixing stuff by yourself as a real choice). So much for promoting freedom.

Let's take all of the FSF software and push it to GPl v3 and see Linux swim. Sure, it'd make the FSF unpopular, but it'd make it clear to those bastards bastardising GNU/Linux to either keep their hands off free software, or play by the rules. Period.

To use a famous quote from a president: "You're either one of us, or you're one of them". It sounds nice and virtuous, yet we have seen in the real world where this cowboy attitude can lead. While I respect people sticking to their ideals, division has never brought anything good. What is the point in having a completely free operating system (the GNU project) if you manage to alienate everybody from using it? I understand the FSF isn't about world domination, yet I am pretty sure they want to rally people in their cause, not the opposite.

You seem to speak for "the community", yet I see a different community. One that is definitely not polarisated to "follow the leader or die".

While it would be interesting to see Linux swim without the FSF, the real entertainment would be the GNU project without Linux. For years, people said that Linux is "just a kernel", yet the HURD is still at 0.2. Moreover, many drivers came from Linux. Just a kernel.

Making changes like this and saying 'stfu' to the community, and forcing them to fork the code is not community friendly.

I wouldn't say you are exactly better by telling them to screw off if they are not happy with the community.

The biggest problem with Linux over the past 3 years has been the involved corporate interest in it. It's both unwanted and unneeded as far as I'm concerned. The average user doesn't need XFS, or JFS. Or most of the other features introduced in the 2.6 series kernel tree for that matter.

Thanks for telling me what I need. Let's get back in 2001.

By the way, I have nothing against the draft of the GPLv3... yet, I understand MySQL AB. They want to keep control of their project (for which, I am pretty sure, they are the major contributor).

The FSF might do their best for the community, but it's pratically impossible to satifisfy everyone. Making the choice to adopt a revision of their licence on your project seems far more reasonable than letting them to override your licence automatically without anything to say. I may trust the FSF, but I won't necessarily let them make choices for me.

melkor - You are just a stupid GPL whore and nothing else. Or may be you are another one of stallman's bastard son. Anyways your whinning doesn't matter. Keeping crying like a loser...but Linux and MySQL are making the right choice. It would have been better if they were under BSD though:D

Your absolutely right , now can you explain to me why Mozilla would have a problem with the GPL when it as for one of its license the GPL ? That's the part I was actually addressing , because I really don't get it.

Whatever. It's good to see you had to resort to name calling. For that I modded you down.

I like Richard Stallman, he's had a very good vision, and his ideals of ensuring that people share and return to the community are brilliant. Linux would not be where it is now if it wasn't for the GPL.

If only the rest of society could learn from this, the world would be a much better place. Sadly, that isn't going to happen.

Anyways, I do not have to like the BSD license, much as you do not have to like the GPL. Note that I didn't resort to name calling just because you disagreed with my views. Try and learn something.

Oh, and please learn to spell. It is whining, not whinning. I see the youth of today have the inability to generally spell correctly, and add up. I wonder what schools teach them these days, because it's certainly not teaching them the basics of spelling and maths.

Linux and MySQL have two choices as I see it:

1. Go with the money and corporate interest, and do all in their power to circumvent the GPL that they are released under, to allow the corporations to take more control of these two products.

2. Go back to their grass roots, the GPL community and tell the corporate interests that they have to play by the GPL if they want to use Linux or MySQL.

It seems that the major players in the Linux and MySQL development arenas have made choice #1, at least to my eyes. Sure, this will see more and more users moving to Linux, and probably better software and hardware support in the long term, but it will also see a long term loss of real freedom, and a move away from the GPL and its community goals as more and more loopholes are found and exploited.

Maybe in a few years the broken US patent system will ruin everything and pretty much make it illegal to use anything else other than Microsoft Windows or Apple OS X due to software patents...then you'll see the cost of Linux sky rocket, and development will dwindle, the community will splinter and you'll end up with what was a great idea, ruined by corporate greed, and government mismanagement.

You claim that Linus is basically following the money. Can you prove that? Do you know Linus himself? Have you talked to him about why he feels the way he feels? No? Really.

You are basically throwing a hissy-fit because someone feels that RMS is not god-like and chooses to follow another path...a path that RMS himself set.

My $0.02, Linus did not succeed because of the GPL, his success was because of his (a) pragmatic view of the GPL and (b) finding other pragmatic people that wanted to help. You think Linus and MySQL sold out the community. Well I think that RMS is leading the community down a path of alienation and quite frankly stupidity.

1. Go with the money and corporate interest, and do all in their power to circumvent the GPL that they are released under, to allow the corporations to take more control of these two products.

I think I must have missed the memo. Is the Linux kernel no longer licensed under the GPL? Is MySQL no longer GPL? Am I now unable to view the source code to these two products?

No, No and Yes. Linux is still GPL. MySQL is still GPL. I can still view the code, freely modify that code. Nobody is trying to circumvent the sacred GPL. What many of these projects are doing is fixing the projects to the GPL v2 license. How the fsck is that circumventing the GPL? How the hell does this relate to MS, Apple and software patents? All of that is non sequitur.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The next Five years for OSS/FLOSS is going to be very interesting. Hell, I don't even use GNU/Linux anymore, because it simply doesn't do what I NEED it to do. But for those that are using GNU/Linux interesting times are ahead.

The community that uses Linux these days has changed. It's no longer the more technically advanced or curious that believe in the GPL. With Linux becoming more popular, it has attraced the proprietary software revoltists, those that don't want to pay for their software. These mongrels prefer to have a free (as in cost) operating system, rather than have to pay for something like Microsoft Windows and they want to have their cake and eat it - free cost, interoperability etc. They don't care about the community and stopping business from bastardising Linux to the point where it serves the business interests and not the community interests. They only care about their own greedy personal usage. Wah! I want to be able to read Microsoft's Word format but I don't want to buy Microsoft Office. Wah! I'm a cheapskate that wants it all for free (as in cost). That's the typical Linux user these days and it sickens me. There was a time not that long ago when the average Linux user chose Linux because of the ideals of the GPL (and also because it suited their needs). That is all changing with the modernisation and bastardisation of Linux with a corporate infrastructure.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't give a rats ass about interoperability with Windows. If governments did their jobs right, they'd have nailed Microsoft to the wall for their monopolistic behaviour and interoperability wouldn't be so much of an issue. I don't give a rats ass about big business wanting to use Linux to 'make a buck'. They can go make their own operating system as far as I'm concerned. Leave a community project alone, we can do without their "patches".

What MySQL has clearly done is say "we do NOT like the GPL v3 and we will not support it". Why? Because they do NOT want to be part of the community, they do not truly believe in the ideals of the GPL. They see MySQL as a money maker. That's fine. I don't have a problem with them making money out of their software. I do have a problem with them choosing the GPL to protect their software and make sure that improvements are added back to the software. But, they want to discourage others from upgrading the license to the GPL v3 when its released, because this new license doesn't seem to meet their political and financial interests. Maybe MySQL should have picked a BSD license, and then watched big business screw them over by using their code and not giving back anything to the community, which is atypical of that license.

MySQL wants its cake and wants to eat it as well. It wants the unfettered commercialism of the BSD license, but it wants the protection of the GPL. You can't have it both ways, choose one or the other.

I don't care what the rest of you say whatsoever, I know what is right, and what is morally right. When big business becomes involved, it is always trouble. Always. Better to tell big business to piss off and leave community projects alone. Big business always has a ulterior motive, or hidden agenda that is at odds with the interest of the public.

OK. Let's just sharpen up the points a little bit. The current situation is this: MySQL has decided to stick with the GPL v2 for now. Here are the question I put to you.

1) How does this prove that MySQL is rejecting the GPL 3 outright? To my knowledge, GPL v3 doesn't exist yet. It's a draft and anything can change in a draft. It is only common sense not to agree to something you have not yet seen.

2) How is this MySQL shafting the community? MySQL is still GPL. All GPL projects right now, are licensed under GPL v2, with the difference being that those with the "or later" clause can sign up for GPL v3 when it is released. How is MySQL different from other GPL projects, given that it is released under the *exact* same license?

3) What are the political/financial needs that the GPL v3 doesn't meet? Better yet, why should people upgrade to GPL v3 if GPL v2 works for them?

You need to stop ranting. Instead, you need to think over these points, come up with good answers to them and then maybe the rest of the OSNews community (oops, I said the "C" word ) can have a sensible discussion with you.

Quote: "1) How does this prove that MySQL is rejecting the GPL 3 outright? To my knowledge, GPL v3 doesn't exist yet. It's a draft and anything can change in a draft. It is only common sense not to agree to something you have not yet seen."

Ah yes, I knew this would be bought into the argument. True, technically, the GPL v3 doesn't exist yet. The sad thing is that several important projects think that they know better and have not only refused to consider moving to the GPL v3 when it's released, but have been actively anti GPL v3 (that famed kernel developers letter to the FSF anyone?). These projects have hidden agendas, and corproations driving those hidden agendas. These corporations have worked out how to loophole around the GPL v2, so of course, they don't want to see the introduction of a GPL v3 which nicely closes those loopholes. They want to be able to use these loopholes to milk things even more. Linux is making money now, nice money for Linus. He likes this. He knows that GPL v3 will force corporations to really behave themselves when using GPl v3 licensed code. He knows aforementioned loopholes will be closed. He also knows that business will retaliate by losing interest in Linux - I mean, if you can't rort the system, why be interested in it? He also knows that a loss of interest in Linux will damange his ability to earn a financial income from it. He likes money, ergo he does what he can to ensure that the Linux kernel keeps on earning money. This is why I referred to Linus and other core kernel developers as being 'shills'. This is why I do not recommend the Linux kernel anymore.

Quote: "2) How is this MySQL shafting the community? MySQL is still GPL. All GPL projects right now, are licensed under GPL v2, with the difference being that those with the "or later" clause can sign up for GPL v3 when it is released. How is MySQL different from other GPL projects, given that it is released under the *exact* same license?"

Read my first answer. This is a clear indication that MySQL does not like, nor want to move to GPL v3. Pretty much most of GPL v3 is now written in stone. The only cause for delays have been the FSF trying to re-write bits to clarify their meaning, to appease certain non FSF friendly troublemakers (Linus anyone?). Yes, I'm making this a personal attack on Linus, because his behaviour has been atrocious, and his ulterior motives are atrocious. He is not a God, like some of you might think. If we are not unified on the GPL, business interests will destroy it. And then, we'll lose it all.

Quote: "3) What are the political/financial needs that the GPL v3 doesn't meet? Better yet, why should people upgrade to GPL v3 if GPL v2 works for them? "

Ever heard of patents? Ever heard of Tivio? Ever heard of the Microsoft/Novell deal? All of them clearly are at odds to what the GPL stands for.

You can either wake up now and smell the roses and take action to remedy the situation, or you can sit back, think Linus knows better than RMS, and watch it all get screwed over.

Quote: "You need to stop ranting. Instead, you need to think over these points, come up with good answers to them and then maybe the rest of the OSNews community (oops, I said the "C" word ) can have a sensible discussion with you."

Oh now I'm ranting! Wow. I've made my points very clear in previous posts, it seems that several people are anti GPL v3 for whatever reasons. These people would rather see Linux become a corporate bastardchild, in order for it to become more popular, rather than Linux respecting the FSF and recognising that there are problems with the implentation of the current GPL v2 in regards to patents etc (as well as certain loopholes). The GPL v3 intends to remove patents as being an issue, and close loopholes so that they cannot be abused. Software patents are bad, and imho they are unconstitutional. Again, big business won out there, making sure that they got what they want, even if it broke the law. Money and power before true democracy, that is the way of living in the US. It's certainly not what the founding fathers would have wanted, and I suspect that many of them would be thoroughly disgusted at the modern US.

There are many license that cover the code in the Linux kernel and the GNU/Linux OS and the distribution based on them.

"Honestly"

I know your not honest.

"the "any later version" concept is a little crazy"

No , crazy does not get upheld in a court of law as legal. If you had a valid point and real argument supporting an once of reality behind it, I am sure that some lawyer and company would gladly fund your lies and insanity in order to destroy and undermine the GPL in court.

"why would you agree to allow your software to be used under terms that you have never seen?"

Trust.

The FSF and GPL have shown for decades that they can be trusted and unlike you they don't spread lies and when they intend to actually make a change they open a discussion on the subject for evryoen to speak and join in before making any change.

The GPL is the creation of Free Software advocate , its goal and reason for existing is :

- To legally protect Free Software.
- To Protect , foster and encourage the creation of Free Software.
- To make sure that tomorrow there is Free Software.

There is no Status Quo when the job and goal of the people on the other side is to use you and crush you and remove your right and steal your code.

Of course it's smart to remove the "or later" clause, in fact, it's insane that anyone licenses the code with "or later".

Question about this, if a future version of GPL says "all your code are belong to us" (us being any entity that isn't the free public), what recourse would you have, other then to fork the code based on some previous version?

The current published version of the gpl is at version 2. gpl2 includes a section that disqualifies users to distribute gpl2 licensed software AND impose additional restrictions on top of what is restricted by gpl2.

The later versions of the gpl (gpl2+n) are expected to impose additional restrictions on top of gpl2. Therefore, it is expected that gpl2 and gpl2+n licensed software are incompatible from a licensing point of view. The point of "or later" is so that the copyright owner of the gpl2 software will give permission to their users to "update" the software license from gpl2 to gpl2+n.

> Of course it's smart to remove the "or later" clause, in fact, it's insane that anyone licenses the code with "or later".

I guess it depends on your situation to include the "or later" clause. If you believe in Stallman's plight for free software and you trust his actions, then it would be smart to include it. If you don't care about the "or later" clause, it would be smart to include it. If you are truly satisfied with gpl2 and want all public derivatives to remain gpl2, then it would be smart to remove the clause

> Question about this, if a future version of GPL says "all your code are belong to us" (us being any entity that isn't the free public), what recourse would you have, other then to fork the code based on some previous version?

> Question about this, if a future version of GPL says "all your code are belong to us" (us being any entity that isn't the free public), what recourse would you have, other then to fork the code based on some previous version?

Could you please rephrase this, I don't comprehend it.

It's a play on the old old web phenomenon "All your base are belong to us". The point the poster is making, is you cannot guarantee what a future version of GPL will say. For the sake of argument, how can you be certain that GPL v10 won't include the clause "All your code are belong to us"? The answer is, you don't. There is no certainty there, and that is why people are removing the "or later" clause from licenses.

The only option left for you, would be to fork a pre-"All your code are belong to us" version and license it under something more sane.

I see it in a less polarized manner. I'm slightly worried about the GPLv3 and all the MySQL is really doing is protecting themselves. If v3 goes sour after release, the MySQL may be one of the few open-source projects to be protected.

And how exactly is the GPLv3 not right? By not permitting the tivoization of GPL software ? By protecting the users of GPL software from software patents? And how exactly will GPLv3 affect any GPLv2 software if no one but the copyright owner can change the license that he distributes his work under? Gosh, have you even read the proposals or your only knowledge on the GPLv3 draft discussion is based on the FUD that is being spread about it?

You write like you are the community. So you hear voices? We call that, here in Finland, as a schizophrenia. There is lot of different users and opinions on open source community and that almost religious movement of FSF isn't the only.

Dear Kaitsu - nice insult. Earns you a -1 mod as well. God knows how you even got moderated up a point, obviously there are some people out there in osnews.com land that think insults are OK. Sad, sad people.

Yes, I realise that there are different groups out there, what I was saying is that the majority of people that I speak to are in favour of the GPL v3. And they are in favour of the Linux kernel moving towards GPL v3. I never proclaimed to speak for everyone like your trying to say.

Many people and companies are now realising that is was a bad idea to license your code GPLv2 or later, because no one has any idea what will happen in the future. I mean, given that the FSF reserves the right to say what is, or isn't the GPL, they could in effect release a new version that effectively states that "all your code are belong to us". People ask the community to trust the FSF, but I say this isn't an issue of trust. The very reason there is a license in the first place is because people do not want to 'trust' each other.

GPLv3 does have the potential to divide the community. It goes further than most licenses and imposes restriction on the type of hardware you can run certain software on. Which means that when some projects change to the new license, some members of the community will find themselves sidelined. Yes, Tivo is a member of the community. They contribute more than most to begin with. Companies are members of the community, and without them, FLOSS software would be mostly merely a plaything.